15/07/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



David Cameron's been a busy bee this morning conducting the most


far-reaching Government reshuffle since he became Prime Minister.


Phillip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary, taking over from William


The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is moved to Chief Whip.


There'll be more women around the Cabinet table.


A long time coming some would say, but are departing male ministers


The European Commission's also been dishing out jobs this morning.


It's got a new president, Jean Claude Juncker.


And "mistaken and dangerous" or " an act of kindness"?


The House of Lords debates assisted dying on Friday.


We'll be talking to the man behind the Bill, Lord Falconer.


And with us for the duration is Sir Paul Coleridge, who was


a high court judge in the Marriage Division until just recently.


Now, without further ado, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of David


Cameron's reshuffle - the most extensive since he took office.


It's already been dubbed the cull of the white, middle-aged man, or the


So let's have a look at who's out and who's in.


The big news last night was that William Hague is leaving the


He is going to be the new Leader of the House of Commons before he steps


The current Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, will replace


The new Defence Secretary will be Michael Fallon,


who is promoted from his job at the Department for Business.


The other big news today is that Michael Gove is moving


from the Department for Education to become the new Chief Whip.


Nicky Morgan, currently a Treasury Minister, will replace Mr Gove


Another big move is Liz Truss, who is promoted to Cabinet


The Prime Minister has also announced that Lord Hill,


the current Leader of the Lords, will be his nomination


Let's talk to our Deputy Political Editor, James


James, this is far more radical and dramatic than you, or I or anyone


expected. Ye, it is the Prime Minister has gone to make a bold


statement here. Most reshoveles fairly percolate out of Westminster


as people sit here and say - somebody replaced by somebody else I


didn't know. This is radical enough to breakthrough and say - there is


real change going on. A new Foreign Secretary. Will that bring any


change in foreign policy, particularly in Europe? William


Hague being replaced by Philip Hammond the former Defence


Secretary. Philip Hammond last a track record of being eurosceptic.


He has in the past allowed the idea to go twha he, if he had a chance,


if there was a referendum now, that he would be tempted to vote no and


we should leave the European Union. We have Michael Gove leaving


education to become Chief Whip. Fascinating. Number Ten insisting it


is not a demotion. But he is not a full men of the Cabinet. He will be


paid less. His aim is to communicate the Government's policies over the


next ten months. What does it mean for education? Education has been a


big message for the Government. They have been driving the reforms


through, primarily because of Michael Gove's energy and passion


for that job. Has it now been a question that that drive, that


passion was beginning to look arrogant and perhaps was urning it


off some voters, particularly those in the education world - was turning


off some voters. And parents. Number Ten insist the education reforms


will carry on. A lot of change. The interesting question is what they


will do in the new posts? Let's pick up on that. You mentioned Michael


Gove, Chief Whip, William Hague, stepping down as Foreign Secretary,


becoming Leader of the House. Is this the case of senior figures


being released now because this Government is on election footing?


We have just got the latest arrival. Penny Morden who appeared. You heard


it there - in the programme called Splash. She did very well when she


gave a speech just after the Queen's Speech a few weeks ago and the Prime


Minister was known to favour her. We expect her to be another of those


women who will make gains. The interesting question, as you say,


Jo, is the Government now on election footing. The answer is,


yes, it is. It has been for sometime. William Hague and Michael


Gove have been freed up from busy jobs to be able to get on the -


Gove have been freed up from busy the Prime Minister's official


spokesman, not even the political spokesman, not even the political


Service spokesman said -- you can expect to see an awful lot of


Michael goal of on radio and television channels in the months


ahead. The interesting question is - how else are they going to reshape


the Government? Will they have a huge increase in women? All the


middle ranking ministers have coming in to get their jobs now. I think we


will get a very large number of them women by the end. As you say, it is


about presentation, it is about the Government renewing itself in


office. It is something all governments try to do. They try to


change the personnel. The question is, will it work this time. We will


come back to you in a few minutes tripe. Maybe more face also have


gone in and out of the famous black door behind you. There has been


plenty more activity overnight and this morning at Cabinet level.


the current Chief Whip, Sir George Young, Minister without


Portfolio, Ken Clarke, Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson


Other big names are also out - Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,


Leader of the Commons, Andrew Lansley, Universities Minister,


David Willetts, International Development Minister, Alan Duncan,


Also leaving Government are Oliver Heald, Nick Hurd,


Andrew Robathan, Stephen Hammond, Greg Barker and Hugh Robertson.


Esther McVey stays as Employment Minister


The new Attorney General is Jeremy Wright, currently


Stephen Crabb is promoted to Cabinet as the new Secretary of State


Greg Clark is the new Minister for Science and Universities


And Matt Hancock is also promoted to Energy Minister


Let's go back to James Landale in Downing Street.


We will go back there in a few minutes' time. We saw before we left


him there, Penny Mordent. MP, who went into number Ten and I think


following on her footsteps was Amber Rudd. I think we can talk to James


who is in position outside number Ten. What do you think of the charge


that this is the cull of white middle-aged, men, is it fair? It is


an apt description. A lot of white, middle-aged men have lost their


jobs, who have been Conservativing in the Cabinet, and have lost their


jobs. Most have gone relatively gracefully. What will happen now, is


one or two of them who are now seething behind closed doors will


wait for their moment to explode and write an article for a Sunday


newspaper or give an interview in which they will express their


concern about how they were sacked unfairly and it is unfair. Basically


a lot of these people have done reasonable jobs. The Prime Minister


does not think they have done a bad job. He simply needs to renew the


Government. It is always a tough call to make. Those MPs, those


ministers who lost their jobs in the last major reshuffle two years ago,


they, many of them are still pretty angry, I can tell you. They can


cause trouble on the backbenches. The issue now is we are now ten


months away from a general election. The pressure for party discipline is


such that the calculation Downing Street will be making is that - the


angry, sacked dismissed ex-ministers will feel enough sense of electoral


loyal Tyne a desire to be re-elected themselves, that they will not rock


the boat too much. One or two will not follow that pattern. But felt


vulnerable to the charge that they zrnt a diverse enough looking


Cabinet and Government? Yes and this is something that all the three


largest parties at Westminster are acutely aware of, both in terms of


frontbenches and governments but in terms of the MPs they have selected.


It is not just about employment. It is about the number of women to


apply to have the jobs. A lot of surveys suggests that many women are


put off entering politics because of the nature of British politics. It


is something they want tow counter. Whether or not the Prime Minister


achieves his aim today in having a third of the Government made up of


women by the end of the day, but that was the tall order some years


ago he set himself. We will come back to you later and you can give


us an update. With us now is the former Welsh


Secretary, Cheryl Gillan and the former Children's Minister, Tim


Loughton. Cheryl, has it been a long time


coming this, promotion of women? I think it probably has, yes. I think


women are not only underrepresented in Parliament but they have been


unrepresented in Conservative ministerial ranks for many moons.


When you consider, when I was made a Cabinet minister in 2010, I was only


the fifth Conservative woman ever to serve at Cabinet level. I think


that's a crying shame. There are 49 women on our bedges and there's


plenty of talent. What -- on our benches. What I have been pleased to


see is some of these women who have been promoted I think are tip-top


and will outperform the men. Who? Let's look at Niki Morgan. She is in


the Cabinet from the Treasury to replace plyingal Gove. Is she up to


the job of carrying on with those reforms? I think she is. I don't


think that would be a question you would scoff a man going into that


position. I think she has been a feisty character she has singularity


of mind, good education and she will make aed good job. She follow in the


footsteps of Gillian Shepherd, a first-class Education Secretary.


Nobody questioned whether she was up to the job. Liz Truss, I was with


her last night, she is a very feisty, capable woman who knows what


she wants in terms of both her family life and the balance she has


there as well as her political career and what she gives to the


country. I think we should welcome those appointments. Any other women


you would like to have seen in? I don't want to see women promoted too


rapidly without that hinterland and that political hinterland they need


to be able to develop well in ministerial roles. I think he has


chosen well with the people he has put N he is letting other women


attend Cabinet but not of Cabinet rank, a good way of bringing them


on. Don't forget, the Prime Minister has very little room to manoeuvre


because he has Liberal Democrat posts to fill. He has undergone a


radical reshuffle of the pack here. He has. I think it is important in a


run-up to an election that a Prime Minister - this is his trump card,


and what Prime Ministers do, that they can reshuffle the pack, but can


I say that is not to say that I don't think there has been equally,


very, very capable men who have left office. Right. You, Tim Loughton, we


could say you are a middle-aged white man. Not that pale. You lost


your ministerial job last time round. You know how it feels. How


much resentment will there be? It was before the last time around. It


was 2012. It is a horrible thing reshoveles. Both for the Prime


Minister and the person on the wrong end of the rankings. But it is


particularly annoying because you think you are doing a good job and


you have kept your nose clean and you get some plaudits in the press


but still you have to make way for somebody else and it is particularly


galling. But that's politics. Politics isn't fair. As Jameses a


saying earlier, the reshuffle isn't fair. I agree with Cheryl. There is


really good women coming through entirely on talent. Pound-for-pound,


I would say, that the women who were brought in in 2010, without do many


of the men. There is talented people. The trouble s you don't want


to promote them too early. Have they been promoted too quickly? Nicky


Morgan, great talent. She took to being a minister like a duck to


water. She has a big brief. She has a marginal seat. Liz Truss, another


natural. They have been bumped up but we are eight or nine months away


for campaigning from a general election and many people investment


marginal seats. That will be a consideration. Do you think and do


you agree the charge that this is a cull, if you like, that actually


someone might say - sexists, do you think it is fair? Of course it is


not fair. James said it wasn't fair. No reshuffle is fair. But what I


think is fair is that the women who are coming forward are really good


talents, will do great jobs as ministers and will portray a good


face for the Tory Party that has been missing. Will this cut through,


Paul coal ridge, to the general public who, most to of the time at


reof shovels, people always say moving in one person you don't know


being replaced by another? ? I moving in one person you don't know


it is radical, so I think it is tribe a chord but this is surely all


about positioning, as James Landale said, for the next general election,


and that s I would imagine, the overwhelming consideration in


Government at the moment. So, this is all about, I suppose, making sure


you present a new, fresh, image to the public, you ditch all the people


who bring with them a lot of rather unpleasant policy decisions that


have gone on in the last few years and you present a new image to the


electorate. Is this a friendlier face of the Conservative Government?


Is this what David Cameron is trying to do? People who are telegenic, who


will be able to communicate the message - that this is about a


cinder, friendlier face, or is that not how you see it? I very much am


hoping it is not as shallow as you are trying to make it out to be, I


don't think it is necessarily about looking good on TV or promoting


women for president sake of it. They have to be able to do the job. I


think that these particular women, will be able to cut mustard but I


agree with Paul, I think the Prime Minister needed to have a new and


fresh approach and I think that he is sharpening up the party for what


is going to be a very hard fight in this next general election. And we


need politics that is constantly being lampooned at being out of


touch with the people, we only have three women in Cabinet, that is not


right or fair, when we have such intelligent women who should be in


Cabinet. We are starting to see that. David Cameron might have


wanted to get rid of people who had too much baggage, do you think that


is the case with your boss, Michael Gove, deemed too controversial? I am


probably not the right person to be asked about Michael Gove. But it was


probably right. But he is being moved to Chief Whip, to bring the


whip to bear on everybody else! Be afraid, be very afraid! We were


surprised, and there is a big irony here because I think the education


reforms have been one of the big successes of this government.


Michael, whether you like him or not, he is controversial, took on


the mediocre educational establishment and force through a


lot of changes. Or alienating the educational establishment. The irony


is that he is seen as a divisive and controversial figure, so in opinion


poll terms it is not done us the good it deserves to have done. That


is the problem. Let's see about Owen Paterson, you could have said a


cheerleader for the right. Will there be unhappiness about that on


the backbenches? Yes, I think so, because Owen is seen very much as a


flag waver for the right and the Eurosceptic side of the party. I


also hope with the two vacancies into which the two women have gone,


there will not be this discussion about, are these two breeds that are


associated with women? Why do we have Michael Fallon - macro two


briefs. Why do we have Michael Fallon going in as Defence Secretary


when we do not have a woman? He has tried to make sure, David Cameron,


that we put the message across that this party has changed. He has been


consistent on that right from the beginning when he stood as leader


for the party. He came in as leader of the party to change the face of


this party, and that is what he's doing, and my colleagues and myself


have to understand that nobody is indispensable. There always live


after a reshuffle on the backbenches, and Tim and I know


that. There speaks the voice of experience from the backbenches. If


you are disappointed about Owen Paterson going, are you pleased that


Philip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary? Do you think he will


bolster that Eurosceptic feeling? Yes, I think it is a good


appointment. I came in at the same time as Philip. The whole story will


be about renegotiating with Europe ahead of a referendum. William has


done one a fantastic job. One of the best foreign secretaries, but has


not been outspoken on euro scepticism as many would like to be


and like it or not, that will be the name of the game, post-2015. Dominic


Grieve, finally, sacked from being Attorney General, some say partly


because he supported the European Convention on human rights. How do


you view that from a legal perspective? I think it is a very


political decision to make. The idea of having a different Attorney


General putting a different spin on the attitude of the courts towards


the European convention on human rights is in reality Fantasy


Football Club a present from a political point of view at the time


of the election, it may prevent a feeling that perhaps the government


are less friendly towards the EEC H R than they are in fact. This is a


piece of legislation now so deeply entrenched in the way the courts


work. Removing the Attorney General is really peripheral. We are going


to leave it there, thank you very much.


is really peripheral. We are going to leave Ken Clarke and Owen


Paterson are not the only Westminster figures who have found


themselves out of a job this week. Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was


appointed only last week by Home Secretary Theresa May, yesterday


announced that she would step down as chairman of the new inquiry


into alleged child abuse by the establishment,


citing what she called a widespread perception that she was


the wrong person for the job. It was just in time for Mrs May to


appear in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, where she was


grilled over her due diligence in appointing the baroness,


in particular, claims that Baroness Butler-Sloss's brother


Michael Havers had attempted to play I believe that the experience of


Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had, and her personal integrity... We all accept


this, we are all great fans of Elisabeth Butler-Sloss's integrity,


that is not in question. What we have that to you twice is did you


know of this specific incident involving Mr Dickens and Sir Michael


Havers? This is an issue that has been raised in the last few days,


and it has surfaced in the last few days as far as I am concerned. Do we


take that as being a no? I have answer the question in the way I


wish to answer it, chairman. Did Juno Baroness Butler-Sloss, I


presume? Very well. She has been a figure in my professional life since


the very day I started, many, many decades ago. She started as a junior


judge, she worked her way up. She is universally respected. In the last


few decades, she has been the president of the family division,


the biggest family job in the country. She was chairman, as we


know, of the extraordinarily important Cliveden enquiry which


looked at the passing of the children's act. There is frankly


nobody... That is not true, there are very few people who have her


experience, and she is also a woman of most extraordinary wisdom and


common sense. But was she right to resign from her appointment to head


up this enquiry? I think she provably was. I suspect nobody had


given proper thought to this angle at the time she was appointed.


Really? You don't think the Home Secretary should have thought about


it, should have thought about how sensitive it was? Somebody must have


slightly dropped the ball in not noticing that her brother had been


involved in the government many, many decades ago, perhaps. I think


if that had been properly considered at the time, she would probably not


have been considered for the job. She is a woman of huge wisdom, and


has come to the decision I think quite rightly that if she was to


make findings which were not finding is that some of the victims want to


be made, the comment would always be made, well, she would say that,


wouldn't she, because she is protecting her. And protecting the


establishment. I don't think I am very impressed by that, but possibly


her brother. The problem is who do you get to head up an enquiry with a


similar level of expertise? The problem here is that people don't


trust the establishment, and having an establishment figure will make it


difficult. There are non-establishment judges, I would


rather not mention names, but there are judges I can think of who have


retired quite recently and have had no particular connections with


government and have had no big jobs like President of the family


division who would certainly be up to doing this. Child abuse is the


meat and drink of the family division. And we get appointed to do


these kind of specific enquiries from time to time, and I don't


think, if they spend a little time, it won't be difficult to find


somebody who has the expertise. Was it right for the Prime Minister to


call for this overarching enquiry into child abuse? I think it was. As


everybody says, things have changed very dramatically in the course of


the last 30 years, particularly since the passing of the children's


act. But these skeletons in the cupboard, if they exist, need to be


brought out and exposed and dealt with in the same way as all these


other cases have come to light. I don't think we can shove all this


stuff under the carpet any more. Jean-Claude Juncker has been


speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning, ahead


of a debate and vote on approving his appointment as President


of the European Commission. The session was basically seen


as a rubber stamp for Mr Juncker, What about Britain? I am defending


the single currency, because the single currency is protecting


Europe, its economy, its citizens. But in reality, you know and we know


that none of this really matters. The deal has been done. The spoils


have been shared out. The election that was supposed to end all of


these deals has resulted in the mother of all backroom deals. You


know and we know that you are likely to be the next president of the


commission, and Mr Juncker, we wish you well, but members of my


political group will not be able to vote for you today for two reasons:


Firstly, we do not subscribe to the process that brought you here. We do


not believe that you have an EU wide mandate that stretches all the way


across the memo states. Secondly, members of my group are not yet


convinced that you are the right man to lead the charge for European


reform. Green so what of our nominee? On the plus side, still


Juncker, you are a sociable cove with a much better since of tumour


than most people I have met in Brussels. And there is no question


that you are a political operator, and you even managed to come over


the last couple of weeks, as you have gone around the political


groups, changed the mood music of it. You said you don't believe in


the United States of Europe, you don't believe in a common European


identity, but I have to say I didn't believe a word of it.


Joining me now from Strasbourg is the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, and the


Labour MEP, Mary Honeyball. Welcome to you both.


Daniel Hannan, first of all, just listening to that, is that the taste


of things to come, in terms of that rather feisty debate?


Yes, and you did not even show the best bits of Juncker. He was calling


for a pan European minimum wage, he was calling the 300 billion euros of


extra spending, because obviously Europe needs to spend more, that is


not the cause of the problem at all! The wonderful passage you showed


saying that the single currency was the defender of the people of


Europe, that will be news to the 19 million unemployed people in the


Eurozone. Then he finished by playing tribute to his heroes, force


one that Iran, home and coal. I don't think there could be anyone at


this stage how King that the British, was right to vote against


him. Clearly, Mr Juncker did not charm you. At the same time he has


said I am not in principle saying that no kind of repatriations of


powers to Britain can take place. If Westminster wants to recover


competencies and others agree, it shall be done. So he might not be


this block to reform that you and others have stated. The word he just


used for that package was reform. So reform has become absolutely


meaningless. When Juncker means it to mean more Europe everywhere.


Clearly we need a different word. You are right though, the deal we


should be going for is a series of unilateral repatriations which will


give something closer to what the Swiss and the Norwegians do, where


we are in the free market, but outside the political union. What I


think is a mistake is to try to go for a pan European reform. It is


very clear that isn't on offer. A man espousing the views you have


just shown was elected by 22 governments. Mary Honeyball, you are


desperate to come in. As Daniel well knows, that package she has talked


about, Britain coming out of the US not on offer, nor I content is


actually what the people of the UK actually want. It is only UKIP and


some Eurosceptics like Daniel who was to see that. The point I would


like to make is that David Cameron, our Prime Minister, really handled


the negotiations over Juncker very badly. He missed making the


alliances which she could have done, and I believe that if Cameron had


been better at doing that, we may not find ourselves in the position


of only having Jean-Claude Juncker here today. So I think that David


Cameron has a lot to answer for. It is therefore wrong, I think, to talk


about this is a stitch up. It is a bit more than a stitch up, and the


way it worked was that under the Lisbon Treaty the European party had


to be consulted about who would be president of the commission. And the


current system emerged. And it is exactly like choosing a government.


When you vote in the UK, the largest party actually then provides the


Prime Minister. This system that was operated today is not very different


from that. Are you a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker? He was not the


candidate to which your party belongs, are you confident that this


arch federalist, as people like Daniel Hannan see him as, is going


to deliver what you and the Labour group want? Well, as I said, it was


not a stitch up, partly because the Labour MEP did not vote for


Jean-Claude Juncker. We have never supported him, because we don't


think he is going to deliver a lot of the things we would like to see.


We want to see jobs and growth in Europe. We want to see unemployment


come right down, we wanted to see action on climate change and energy


security. We want to see better wages. We want a proper reform and


changed agenda in Europe, and we don't believe that John Claude


Juncker, who is not of our political family, we don't believe he can


deliver that. Labour didn't have an alternative candidate they were


pushing but do you think that Jean-Claude Juncker, now as European


Commission President hastens or coup could Hayesen British departure from


the EU? I do shall -- or could hasten.


It puts an end to the idea of fantasy. The idea that British


politicians have been pushing for 40 or 50 years, the idea that we could


create this thing called a Europe of Nations in large, free trading


Europe. Plainly that is not what he is talking B he has just won the


support of 26 out of 28 governments. He, in about ten minutes' time I


think will win the support of most ME pe. Ps, we should stop deluding


ourselves and fantasising about the kind of EU we might have liked and


face up to what has taken shape on our doorstep and ask the only


question that matters - will he be part of that or follow into this


United States of Europe or can we have a different relationship of the


kind that all the other non-EU states in Europe have, where we were


open market inter-governmental cooperation and military alliance


but on the basis that our own law is supreme in our territory. I would


like Daniel to explain what that would mean for the UK? We know that


over half of our exports could to Europe. It is not true. We know how


important the single market Europe. It is not true. We know how


our country. I don't believe we can have one without the other. It is no


longer true that over half of our exports go to Europe. We are trapped


in a trade block that is sinking. I do not want to see a superstate. I


want to see reform and change but I don't think that Jean-Claude Juncker


account person to do that. I will have to leave it there. You


supported him. We have to stop you there. Apologies. We will get you a


better earpiece next time. Later this week the House of Lords


will be debating the The Private Member's Bill - bought


by Labour peer Lord Falconer - would make it legal for terminally-ill


adults in England and Wales to The former Archbishop of Canterbury,


Lord Carey, and even Desmond Tutu, are in favour of such a change


but many people still oppose it. Here's what Baroness Tanni


Grey-Thompson had to say after the Supreme Court ruled against


right-to-die campaigners last month. The law we have is not perfect but I


think the proposition that we have before us moves the line in the sand


too far the other way, where, it is open to interpretation that people


may be coerced or encouraged or because they don't have the right


support around them, they think that this is the only option that they


have. And at the moment, you know, if there is circumstances where


somebody, you know, has the wrong type of help, you know, the police


investigate and there is a possibility of bringing action. If


Lord falconers' bill, as it stands, go goes through, there will not be


that kind of investigation. We are joined by Lord Falconer and Dr


Vivienne Nathanson from the BMA who oppose a change in the law. What


will be aloud over your proposal? Where somebody has a diagnosis of


six months or less to live and two doctors have certified that the


person has the mental capacity to make the decision as to whether or


not they should be given a prescription which they can take and


the doctors both certify that that person has the firm and settled


intention that they wish to take their life, then they will be given


a prescription but they have got to take T so what will be authorised,


subject to the safeguards is the giving of a prescription, to


somebody to take their own life. A lot of pressure on doctors. Isn't


it? Not at all. Doctors are used to treating people in the last days of


their life. What my bill does, is that it means that for those who are


clear about it, they won't have to struggle and fight maybe for two or


three more days of life. The BMA is very clear in its position, no


change, no assisted dying. Why? Mainly because we have listened to


what doctors have to say. While there are a wide variety of views,


the majority are against it and they are worried. The majority of


doctors, not the public? The majority of doctors. Remember, you


are asking that doctors that instead of having as the basic remit of


their role to be to alleviate suffering, to help and look after


people, to give them control over their lives, what you are saying is


they will help people to end their livers and for doctors that is such


a fundamental change, that the majority are saying they wouldn't be


prepared to do this. But they are out of step, aren't they, with


public opinion? You see a doctor's role differently in the way you have


outlined but over 80% of people in the British attitudes study have


said a doctor should be able toned the life of a terminally ill person.


# I think the difference here is doctors come to this from a


different position. That position is understanding what can be done. A


large part of a doctor's concern is that this would lead to people


feeling that death was the best option for them, whereas in fact


palliative care and so on maybe able to offer them those last few days,


weeks or months, in a situation which is acceptable to them. It has


to be what the patient wants. What about the dangers inherent in this?


There are dangers? People could be pressurised into ending their own


lives. And I'm sure you would not be happy about that. Not at all. In a


way that people has said that legalising assisted dying, is the


sword of dchl amaclese hanging over people's heads. It is beater and


safer position than one and what the Supreme Court said, in a situation


where somebody takes their own life and there is an investigation


afterwards as to whether there was pressure. Can you put safeguards in


place, legally? I don't see any problem with it. The problem with


the debate is principle and practice get muddled. The principle is the


one that Charlie has been talking about, that people should have the


autonomy to make debt significance. That is what is supported, I think


-- to make the decision. I think that's what is supported because


medical science have reached the stage where people can be kept alive


forever. They should be able to say, to seems to me - enough is enough


and be helped to bring their lives to an end but, of course, the


safeguards that need to be put in place, need to be the best possible


safeguards that can be devised. I don't see a problem with this. We


already, - those judges who sit in the Family Division already take


these decisions frequently. The only point in which I would disagree with


Charlie is with leaving it to the doctors. I would in fact shift that


to the court. I would make a judge make that final decision, which is


what he does now in circumstances where we are dealing with PVS


patients, where we are dealing with children who can't make up decisions


for themselves, for the mentally incapacitated and we are very used


to doing it. They are very difficult decisions but they are tried


extremely sensitively in public and there is nothing secret about it. I


would be uneasy about leaving it to doctors. I think it is putting too


much responsibility on them. Wouldn't that be a safer, judicial


way of dealing with it? We considered carefully whether or not


is should be a court-based decision process. A lot of people concluded


that but the conclusion we have reached is that it is much better


that it be done by the doctors, some who maybe involved in the treatment


of the patient. They don't want to do it. That is the key, isn't it? I


very much question what Vivien is saying is the view of the doctors. I


really that that, with the greatest of respect, my experience of talking


to a lot of doctors is that there are some who are very opposed to it


be, there are some who are very in favour of it, the vast majority what


a clear decision to be made about it, so that they, the doctors, know


where they stwand. They would be following the law. Exactly. Would


that change your attitude? Well, obviously if there was a law we


would have to look at what that meant from doctors but the evidence


we have from doctors is that the majority wouldn't want to take part


in this. But we know there are some who would be willing. I don't argue


about that. The question is whether those who are not willing, feel that


this could damage their relationship with patients. That's part of the


sensitivity here. You are a doctor, how would you feel personally,


putting aside the views you are expressing of the BMA, how would you


feel about making that decision personally? I would feel


extraordinarily difficult. Really? Yes Having started my career working


in palliative medicine. One of the things that is key is talking to the


patient Bo and finding out what they want and making sure they are


getting all options. What worries me and a lot of doctors s that a lot of


patients don't get every option of palliative care available. The


second thing is absolutely we must never force people to have a


treatment that would extend their life that they don't want. It is


part of the sensitivity. It is one of the things that doctors, we know,


is people are more frightened, is being forced to have a treatment


that is unacceptable. I will have to leave it there.


Now, have you ever said "I do" or more to the point, asked, "will you


marry me"? Well, apparently after decades of decline, getting married


is more popular. But how important is marriage when it comes to


bringing up a family? Here's Eleanor.


Love to and to cherish until death do us part. We all love celebrating


a good wedding but how many of us think marriage really is essential


when it comes to having a family? I don't believe it is important at


all. Even though we are married. You don't have to have married. You can


have a stable relationship and bring up children without having to


commit. I'm 50/50 on that. Oh, gosh, very important. That's bus I'm a


Christian. -- -- that's because. Since the 107s there has been a


long-term decline in weddings in England and Wales. That's because


more couples are living together without getting married and many are


delaying marriage altogether now, though, weddings are back in vogue.


Marriage is up 5% according to the latest figures from the office of


national statistics. It might be getting more popular but there are


still clear generation a differences on marriage, according to the


British Social Attitudes Survey. It says people born in the 1950s and


60s are much more likely to think you ought to get married, if you


want to have children, than people currently in their 20s and 30s. And


the differences and opinion on marriage are played out in the


political sphere, too. ! Those who are Conservative supporters are much


more likely to think that marriage and children go to together than


Labour and certainly Liberal Democrat supporters. You can see why


this is an issue which has been a particular touchstone for the


Conservative Party. Why it has wanted to reintroduce the marriage


tax allowance because its supporters are particularly still in favour of


marriage and certainly in favour of marriage when children are involved.


And some MPs couldn't be clearer on the value of tying the knot. I think


marriage is absolutely critical. As the previous Labour Government


established when they did a report supporting families, marriage is


historically the best foundation for bringing up children. There is no


point in denying it and we face a real problem in this country, with


dysfunctional families. Every Member of Parliament experiences it. We see


the trail of human misery. Family breakdown is now costing this nation


?46 billion a year, more than we spend on defence. I used to work at


the Children's Society before I was elected to Parliament. What I saw


there is that for children the most important thing is they had strong,


loving relationships with their parents and their wider family. So,


while we should celebrate marriage and respect it as a great


institution, if children's parents aren't married they may have chosen


to express that commitment in a completely different way. We should


still respect and support that. Same-sex marriage became legal in


England and Wales after a new law was passed in Parliament last year.


As the institution of marriage is opened up to more people, some may


question its value, but the trend is on the rise.


We are joined by the writer and activist Julie Bindel who says


marriage is a Conservative institutions which curtail's women's


freedom and still with us, Paul Coleridge, previously a High Court


judge specialising in family matters and founder of the Marriage


Foundation. Why does marriage provide a better foundation for


bringing up children than having two loving parents who aren't married?


Because it lasts. The statistics are overwhelming that people who get


married for all sorts of psychological reasons that we


discuss, stay together longer than people who don't have children and


the overwhelmingly important factor in the upbringing of children, as


your film, one of your commentators on your film made clear, is for the


overwhelmingly important factor in the development of children is the


stable relationship of their parents and so anything that provides that


stability, which is what the Marriage Fundation is all about -


anything that reinforce that is stability is a good thing from the


point of view of children. You are going against the statistics, the


evidence of being married is better if you are going to have children.


No we have not polled those people who live in non-twra digsal


non-wedded relationships. They are increasing, although there is a


slight rise as the figures show in marriage, more and more heterosexual


couples are veering away, choosing not to share the same household.


Many children are being raised in non-traditional families and are


better off for T my person about the way marriage is being peddled as a


great institution is we are not looking at the number of women who


instigate stwors. The majority is about one in two of all marriages at


the moment are instigated by women, and the majority are either their


husband's infidelity or domestic violence. Now, many children who


grow up in environments, in marriage environments, are very badly


affected by domestic violence, by child sexual abuse and by very


unhappy relationships. That's not the sort of stability children


should be forced to - that should be forced upon children. And you must


have seen plenty of that in the family division, are you advocating


that couples should stay together even in those circumstances,


marriage, above everything else, is more important, whatever is going on


in that family? No, I am not advocating that, we never have


advocated that. What we are advocating is much more thought


before you break your relationship up, whether it be married or


unmarried relationship, because what we do know, and there is very recent


literature by experts that has demonstrated this, however you dress


it up, the separation of parents, the break-up of a parent 's's


relationship, affects the children for the rest of their lives. So


everything that can reasonably done to keep relationships reasonably


happy, and don't let's have a fairy tale ideal about long-term


relationships, whether they be married or not, should be done. And


the current level of breakdown, which as you rightly say, is miles


too high, needs to be addressed and tackled. And the government, all of


us, individual organisations like ours, needs to focus people 's minds


on the damage they are doing to their children. I can think of


nothing worse than staying in a relationship for the sake of staying


in that relationship. But do people walk away too easily, if there was


more, if not pressure, being put on them, but if there were more


agencies working with people to keep people together, would that not be


better? I think that is the worst possible thing you can do for women


and their children in particular. Many women are worst intermarriage.


We just have to look in the UK, never mind elsewhere, where was the


early marriage, chartered marriages, forced marriages, where within are


trapped because of religious organisation. -- childhood marriages


was the state is involved it is far more difficult to win in to leave,


and that is the last thing we should be doing, piling more pressure on


them. The view that women are shackled to that household has to be


very bad for the children. What about this idea of single parents,


in this whole debate, they are going to feel that people in the family


division do not regard them as being able to provide a loving,


division do not regard them as being able to provide stable home? And


that actually the only option is the institution of marriage? We have


never said that, I have never said that. But is that not the


implication? Well, I am very sad if it is. Single women do a fantastic


job. Single men, for that matter, though it is mainly single


job. Single men, for that matter, children know what an


extraordinarily arduous task it is, over many, many years and it is very


much more difficult to do it on your own. So, of course, they should be


given every plaudits are doing what they do. Are you advocating,


though, judicial activism here? Do you think it is right for a judge or


someone in a position to be advocating a moral standpoint, if


you like? It has nothing to do with it. I am not interested in people 's


morals. If they don't have children, they can have as have as far as I am


concerned three relationships a week. That is nothing to do with


what we are about. We are about children and the best outcome for


them. He has had experience in the family division of the misery that


has caused. Is it not worth listening to him? It still wants


people to stay married despite the misery. Interestingly, your


organisation was against equal marriage for lesbians and gay


people, when I think the reason they have been invited to join the


institution is because it is a failing one, with numbers dwindling.


We have to look at not just child sexual abuse and domestic violence


is a cause for the breaking of relationships, but the fact that men


within marriages are doing so little more housework and childcare than


they ever were. One minute per day per year for the last three decades


increase. No wonder so many women are unhappily married.


Let's get more on the reshuffle and our Deputy Political Editor, James


Give us the latest details. There is a brief lunchtime hiatus going on


here but in the last half an hour, we have had a string of women MPs


coming in with big smiles, and leaving that door with even bigger


smiles. By my count now, we have eight Wigan who have been promoted,


three obviously to the Cabinet that we have seen earlier in the day, we


have seen Anna superego she has been promoted, now a mid-ranking defence


minister. -- Anna Subri. And Rudd is an environment minister. Preeti


Patel Is joining the Exchequer. George Osborne's team. There is a


bit of redemption going on here. We talk about the women but we should


not forget that men have been promoted too. There are two new male


faces in the Cabinet, Michael Fallon and Stephen Crabb, and a lot of


other men being promoted too. What about the political impact, as we


stand now? I think the rest of Whitehall is sitting down, having


its lunch, thinking what does that mean? Clearly there will be a huge


presentational change in the way the government presents itself to the


outside world. We will see an awful lot of Michael Gove on our channels,


an awful lot of these female MPs who have been promoted to the front


stage. Will it change policy, and I think that is more of a subtle


question and one we will have to wait a while to see. But clearly the


Prime Minister wanted to do a reshuffle, hates doing them, this


time he has wanted to try and be bold, so he can try to break through


the Westminster bubble, to try and impact on some of the voters out


there who might just be engaging with this, to say there is a bit of


change, a bit of freshness. That is his aim. Whether the public respond


like that, we will have to wait and see. We are joined by the Sun's


political editor, Tom Newton Dunn and by Steve


Richards from the Independent. welcome to both of you. Tom Newton


Dunn, much more radical, much more different than any of us predicted.


Will it make a material difference to what we see in policy terms, or


is it all about presentation? Almost certainly not, this is effectively


cosmetic. Dramatically cosmetic, a lot of interesting faces, but it is


also not just the female element. There is also the rise of the


regional accents, to put it another way, the toffs are slightly down,


those with a more modest background are up. That is very important for


David Cameron to present this new, slightly softer face to the country.


They have been well aware now for a year or two fine, they have sorted


out the, tackling the deficit Benchley, they have done the hard


stuff, the numbers look good. But they have not translated the feeling


to victories. This is all about cosmetics. How could you change


policy, if you think about it? All the big reforms through, Iain


Smith's universal credit, free schools, there is not much new


legislation. It is how you present the legislation that is already


there. Do you think it will work, if we take what Tom Newton Dunn has


said, this is an election footing, clearly moving across to next May,


Lynton Crosby perhaps has a singer Prince all over this, the election


strategist? No, because in the end in British politics, certainly in


the build-up to an election, as far as voters notice things at all, they


might notice the leader, the Chancellor, if he or she is lucky,


and a couple of others, but not much beyond that. And we still have the


same leader, we still have the same Chancellor. If these moves have


happened in year one, there could be big policy applications, but I


completely agree with Tom, there will be no policy implications. The


strategy is decided at the very top and that strategy is in place. It is


about communicating the message, isn't it? Will that not be more


effective now? Although Michael Gove has alienate it a huge number of


people in the education world, he is a brilliant interviewee. He has the


art of the political interview back down to a fine art. Seeing more


within on the television at the margins will make a slight defence.


Otherwise, this will have very little practical consequence. This


charge, Tom Newton Dunn, that this has been the cult of the pale, male


and stale, has it been overstated? Cheryl Gillan said it had been a


long time coming, David Cameron should have done this a long time


ago, promoting able women to these positions. He was just answering the


charge that there were too many posh boys in the government and in


Cabinet, and they should have been more women promoted before now.


Because they have never had them. She and the Chancellor are both


correct. Don't underestimate, 17 ministers went last night, half of


them sacked. Owen Paterson did not want to go, Dominic Grieve did not


want to go, Damian Green did not want to go. These are to a greater


or lesser extent, the posh ones, the old ones, people who are not quite


as electorally presentable as perhaps they should be in this


modern day and age was that I agree with Steve, but I would not


underestimate the repeated effect of Esther McVey, Liverpool born and


bred, brilliant TV performer, and Michael Gove, the Mr and Mrs of the


TV studios and that they will have their own seats, you will have to


write their names on the back of the seats for the next nine months. That


seeps in. You think it will have cut through? It will to a certain


extent. David Cameron's problem is he is a terrible toffs and he is out


of touch, so say the polls. This will help, to a greater or lesser


extent, but it will help. Ideological aeon Europe, what do you


make of the changes, looking at that prism? It has become slightly more


Eurosceptic. We have a Foreign Secretary who has publicly


contemplated the idea of leaving the European Union. It is not that much


more right wing than the previous cabinet that Cameron led, but if you


compare it to the last time they won an overall majority in 1992, when he


had Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd and Michael Heseltine might at the top,


it is way to the right and more Eurosceptic than that major Cabinet


that won an overall majority in 1992. Cameron has not changed his


party, which is what he started promising to do. I wonder honestly


whether being Eurosceptic is right wing any more. What has changed


policy wise is that it is a more Eurosceptic Cabinet and it perhaps


ever has been under the Tories but look at the Labour benches. What is


Labour's response to this, Stephen Richards? I don't know, haven't they


put out a line that it has been the purge of the moderates. This should


be frightened on one ground, ASH macro they should be, what they need


to reflect on is that Cameron, at times, can do the leader role. He is


utterly ruthless. He has sacked a lot of people. He has brought about


sweeping change. It won't make any practical difference or electoral


difference, but he has shown he can rise to these legally challenges, --


leadership challenges, and that is one star that Cameron can cling to


after all of this. Apart from that, it hasn't made much difference. Has


he stored up any trouble for himself, David Cameron with these


people going on to the backbenches? Not really. They will make some


trouble. Owen Paterson will shout about climbing change but not


really. Thank you for being the guest of the day, Paul Coleridge.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


Andrew and I will be here at 11.30 am tomorrow with Prime


Ministers Questions, and all the big political stories of the day.


Download Subtitles